SPATIUM UDC 72(497.11)”1929/1998” No. 35, June 2016, pp. 45-53 711.523(497.11)”1929/1998” Preliminary report - Short Communications DOI: 10.2298/SPAT1635045S

ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS AND THE ISSUE OF THE AUTONOMY OF ARCHITECTURE: THE CASE OF TERAZIJE TERRACE

Grozdana Šišović1, ,

Terazije Terrace in Belgrade and many different architectural projects for this space produced over the last almost 90 years are the subject matter of the analysis. The research is conducted with the aim to recognize and present diverse currents in the development of an architectural scene and shed light on the role of architectural competitions in these complex flows. The 1929-1930 competition won by Nikola Dobrović, as well as the 1968, 1991 and 1998 competitions with the awarded projects are the focal point of the paper as the samples of architectural practice significant for the understanding of the relations between the treatment of “grand architectural themes” and the dominant orientation of a local architectural culture. The theoretical framework refers to contemporary theoretical debate on the autonomy of the discipline (Somol and Whiting, 2002; Aureli, 2008; Hays, 2010; among the others). Key words: Terazije Terrace, architectural competitions, modernism, autonomy of architecture.

INTRODUCTION Natalije Street in order to form a new public space for the purpose of building the terrace. Terazije Terrace is a space in the very center of Belgrade, The making of the Master Plan was preceded by an originating from different moments in the architectural international urbanistic competition in 1922. Among the historyspecific of as the a 20 placeth century. that Having connects been very the subject diverse matter ideas awarded and mentioned entries, six proposed a terrace- of numerous architectural competitions and commissioned belvedere in the place where Terazije Square opens itself projects, this partly empty urban block served as a spatial framework and an inspiration for many architects of the happened due to the fact that the competition brief suggested Serbian, the Yugoslav and the international scenes to make asup advisabletowards the that such Slope public (Vuksanović-Macura, spaces should be incorporated 2014). This their proposals for the future development of the city center. into the proposals of the Master Plan. Later, the Report on the Master Plan included the ideas about the repeated motif Linked directly to Terazije Square, the central point of the of the terraces located at Kalemegdan Fortress, Terazije Belgrade downtown, the sloped area of Terazije Terrace opens itself up to the view of and towards the river Sava and the far horizons in the west (Figure 1). As the main axis realized,Square, areasjust as of has Kosančićev been the case venac, with Topčider many other Hill valuable and the of the city center (Kalemegdan – Terazije Square – Slavija Plateau of Vračar. These series of terraces have never been Square) lies partly on a ridge, there are several points along that line from which the attractive views of the surroundings plannedAccording conceptions to the known (Maksimović, data from 1980). 1901, the idea of the could be opened. reconstruction of the urban block of Terazije Terrace in the form of a public space with the accompanying public objects According to Kovaljevski (1930), after the Committee for the dates back to the time when Dimitrije Leko pointed to that space as a representative one, suitable for building a new marked the place for a terrace-belvedere in 1923, in the place Parliament which could thus, dominate over the extended that,Development as against of Terazije the Master Square, Plan opens of Belgrade itself up had between officially the Terazije Square (Ibid.). hotels “Moskva” and “Balkan”, the city government started repurchasing the land of the sloped terrain towards Kraljice place as a possible location for a new Town Hall, stating 1 thatIn 1910, it was the one architect of the most Jefta Stefanovićbeautiful sites proposed for such the a samekind [email protected] Ljubice Ivošević Dimitrov 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia of edifice. As Vuksanović-Macura (2013: 156) noticed, there spatium 45 Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

accompanied by drawings or projects. Given that fact, one and in the lower group – those for the restaurants, the pubs, ofwas the no perspective reliable information drawings comprisedwhether these by Chambon’s first ideas 1912were of buildings – “in the upper group – those for public offices, In one period of time, lively polemics against the possible Terazije Terrace. Since this plan was a free vision of a future the cinema and so on” (Maksimović, 1980: 251). Plan is considered to be the first drawing of the idea of city rather than a proper regulation plan, the drawing of the newspapers. In an article published in the in 1927 area of Terazije Square and Terazije Terrace was also a kind (Thelocation Town of theHall future and Terazije Town HallTerrace, filled 1927), the pages Terazije of Belgrade Terrace of an imagined romantic setting inapplicable to the actual was indicated as a possible site for this purpose. Additionally, urban situation. a detailed description of the program of the building was given, which referred to the entire space between Terazije Square and Kraljice Natalije Street. According to that program, municipal architect Jan Dubovi made a sketch

future competition brief which we will return to later. In 1928,of the the building, same architect which obviouslymade a project largely for influencedthe temporary the development of the space of the terrace by constructing an object on its side, at the top of , conceived as “a multifunctional space with a public reading-room, a

2001: 33). However,journalists’ theclub preparationand the City Museum”for the (Milašinovićcompetition Marić, was continued, although in 1929 there was still a part of the land to repurchase in order to complete the necessary area according to the plan. The public had already been under the

Figure 1. The contemporary view over Terazije Square and Terazije most beautiful in the city and that its future joining to the Terrace towards the Sava river and the parts of publicinfluence space of the of Terazije propagated would idea secure that the mostsite was beautiful one of way the (Source: http://belgradecat.com/page/4/, accessed 27th May 2016) of its development and extension (Competition for Terazije Terrace, 1929). Viennese architects Emil Hoppe and Otto Schönthal made a THE 1929 COMPETITION: A MODERNIST BREAKTHROUGH Macura (2013), possibly as a commission by the Bank of thedesign Danube for Terazije Society Terrace (Banka in Podunavskog1921, according Društva). to Vuksanović- In this The Competition Brief and the Results beautifully drawn eclectic proposal, the space of the Terrace In August 1929, only seven months after the Kingdom is designed in a series of oval green areas (with decorated of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had changed its name little pavilions and terraces) and the streets around them. into the and the dictatorship of At the top point of the Terrace, a belvedere with border colonnades was proposed (Figure 2). an international ideas competition was opened for the architecturalKing Aleksandar solution Karađorđević to Terazije Terrace. had been After announced, the 1922

contest of an international character expected to lead to a solutioncompetition to that for important the Master urban Plan, location that was in Belgrade. the first newThe results were published in June 1930. The winner of the competition was the architect of the younger generation,

entries,Nikola Dobrović,ten were withawarded his designprizes underor mentions the password by the competition“Urbanismus” jury. (Figure About 3). one-half Out of theof thetwenty-five entries camesubmitted from

were he was starting his career of an independent architect, afterabroad. having Nikola successfully Dobrović himselfworked sentat prominent his work fromarchitectural Prague,

Figure 2. Emil Hoppe and Otto Schönthal, Terazije Terrace, perspective view, 1921 Having in mind the dominant tendencies on the Serbian (Source: Vuksanović-Macura, 2013) architecturaloffices for several scene, years. the building policy in general, as well

The 1923 Master Plan opened the possibility of the proposed was the one of a radically new image to envisage realization of the idea of Terazije Terrace as an open plaza as the taste of an average citizen, the vision that Dobrović with a view of the horizon in the west, and a set of buildings members, wrote a lengthy article on the competition results on the lateral sides. The plan proposed three cascades of the forin the the very capital’s center ofnewspaper the city. Branko Politika, Popović, emphasizing one of the that,jury open area in the axial composition, flanked by different kind speaking from the architectural point of view, Dobrović had

46 spatium Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

made the extension of Terazije Square “substantially modern The general criteria for the evaluation and preferences of the jury become even more obvious once we are aware of the fact that three of the four awarded designs are clearly itand “solves monumental, the problem even ofin theits tiniestterrace detail” in a radical (Popović, way. 1930: The modernist. The design made by the professor of Munich 112). Describing the winning design, Popović testified that Polytechnics, O. Kurc, awarded the second prize, was an the whole area to be treated. The terrace extends almost to exception. The overall expression of his architecture was theterrace building itself line as wellin Kraljice as the Natalije buildings Street, flanking which it, transforms span over monumental, serious and not deprived of a certain pathos. it into a grandiose, raised plaza.” (Ibid.: 112). The third awarded solution came from Prague, where it had

done it together with his colleague Gustav Bohutinski. The been made by Croatian architect Mijo Hećimović, who had modernist conception, formed from the large cubes, also proposingpublished drawinga huge terrace testifies over to thethe architecturewhole depth of of a the radically block,

proposal. The design that received the fourth award was the in a manner even more radical than the one in Dobrović’s

architecture,work by the architectsalthough Branislavclearly playing Marinković with and the Dragoljub classical motifsJovanović, of the and plaza, was also the conceivedgate and the as abelvedere. dominantly modernist Among the six mentions, there were very different architectural approaches which, all taken together, contributed to the diversity of the conceptions the competition had collected as the answers to its program. Besides the modern ones, there were a lot of eclectic, or conservative designs, among which there were some that did not adhere to the competition brief and closed the view of

authors, modern architecture won the competition and the river.winner According himself towas Zoran the bestManević, one amongas well theas many modernist other

crucial point of the rejection of modern architecture and Figure 3. Nikola Dobrović, Terazije Terrace, competition project, planningproposals. in According Belgrade tocould Ljiljana be explained Blagojević by (2003: the example 116), “the of perspective, 1929-1930 (Source: Perović and Krunić, 1998: 28) the winning competition project for Terazije Terrace”. The significance of and the ideas lying behind the winning proposal out,It is worthhaving notingin mind the that, tone as of aPopović’s prominent text, member glorifying of the winning proposal, especially, as Manević (1979: 221) points Terrace is the most famous non-built modernist project in There is no doubt that Dobrović’s design for Terazije competition jury, Popović himself had a significant role in the introduction of the ideas of modern architecture to the defining the criteria for the evaluation of the works and in Serbia. Many authors stressed its crucial significance for making the final decision on the distribution of the awards. that, in comparison with the projects of a similar program, thelocal competition architectural designs scene. for Miloš Alexanderplaz Perović (2003: in Berlin, 130) arguesdating from 1928, and the complex of the Rockefeller Center in New

more successful in combining multiple different functions (FigureYork, Terazije 4), bringing Terrace at bythe Dobrović same time was an more image organized of a pure and transparent structure. What is of special interest for the subject matter of this paper is the following question: What exactly is the autonomous contribution of an architectural competition and the set of ideas behind the proposed projects to a local culture, to the

policy? way of defining the urban issues and the urban planning As we have mentioned earlier, two years before the competition a local newspaper had published a detailed description of the possible program of the future complex on Terazije Terrace (The Town Hall and Terazije Terrace, 1927). Figure 4. Nikola Dobrović, Terazije Terrace, competition project, The multi-purpose buildings grouped into a simple scheme the plan of the terrace level, 1929-1930 as demonstrated by Jan Dubovi’s illustration together form (Source: Perović and Krunić, 1998: 27)

spatium 47 Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

a monumental terrace with laterally placed volumes. The way of funding was also proposed – the municipality would potential directions of the city center development. only participate by providing the land for the construction, significant number of new architectural concepts about the Belgrade Chief Urbanist and the director of the Urban After the Second , Nikola Dobrović, as the new while different private companies would find an interest in Department of EPC (Executive People’s Committee), made investing in this multifunctional edifice. new efforts to reanimate the subject of Terazije Terrace and fully met all its requirements. Moreover, the basic difference betweenDobrović’s his answer design to and the the competition other good-quality brief was projectsdirect and at solution in 1946, in which the stretching of the gesture the same competition is an impressively clear, simple and throughhis project the from urban 1929, tissue, proposing starting a fromsignificantly Terazije remodeled and going ordered functional scheme, as the basis for the beautifully all the way to the river, became dominant. designed architectural form authentically modern in all its elements. Describing his intentions underlying the project,

DobrovićIn the first (1932: place, the114) following gave a list should of its be key introduced: goals: 1) traffic in the city center should be regulated; 2) the concentration of crafts, the commercial and the cultural activities; 3) citizens’ recreational activities; 4) new-aesthetic moments; 5) the economic aspects; 6) the elimination of housing for rent from the downtown area. This list was immediately followed by an extended description of the regulation of pedestrian circulation on and around the site, through the building, in all possible directions – vertically, horizontally and up-and-down the slope – which was remodeled and incorporated into the interior of the building under the terrace. He writes about the motivated circulation of users, presenting the project overlappingas a device forof themany regulation diverse and functions. distribution Writing of the about flow Corbusier’sof people, as project well asfor for Centrosoyuz the efficient in andMoscow, complementary J. L. Cohen emphasizes the fact that Corbusier frequently used the term Circulation to describe the core idea of this project. Corbusier elaborated on this: “Architecture is circulation. Think what it Figure 5. Vladeta Maksimović and Vido Vrbanić, Terazije Terrace, project, model, 1951 means. It condemns academic methods and sanctions the (Source: B.S., 1951) principle of pilotis” (as cited in Cohen, 2008: 54). We can argue that, apart from all its formal qualities which institution did work on a new Master Plan for Belgrade, most consequent modern architectural conception the After Dobrović had left the Urban Department, this Serbianclearly distinguish public had facedthe winning until then, project its overall by Dobrović intrinsic as logic the designed under the leadership of Miloš Somborski, and and the set of ideas it presented could be the most important which was officially accepted in 1950. The Plan was novelty to be absorbed by the local culture. It is quite another for Terazije Terrace, which proposed a connection between question whether that culture has the capacity to embrace thewithin pedestrian it, the architect surface of Stanko Terazije Mandić and the made highest a new level project of the and truly comprehend those ideas so that it could make use Terrace, so the tunnel under it could interconnect Prizrenska and Balkanska Streets. Under the surface of the Terrace, a simple singular mass of an object is designed, which ‘ANof them, INTEGRATED in the first VOID’ place.2 AND THE DISTORTED ЕCHOES consumes only the upper part of the block between Terazije OF DOBROVIĆ’S DESIGN

and Kraljice Natalije Street, reducing significantly the extent ofIn constructionthe very next on theyear, site architectural compared to magazinesDobrović’s solution.gave an MasterVuksanović-Macura Plan as an older (2013: solution 161) states was an that unprecedented the fact that insight into a new project for the Terrace by the architects event,Nikola having Dobrović’s in mind project that there was were incorporated some newer into proposals, the 1939 among which those from the international competition for Belgrade Design Institute (Projektni zavod IONO Beograda) the design of Terazije Square organized in 1937. (B.S.Vladeta 1951; Maksimović Social Architectural and Vido Objects, Vrbanić, 1951). made This within project the incorporates the recommendations of the new Master Plan The above-mentioned competition took place at the same and proposes a dominantly horizontal structure with two time as the competition for the reconstruction of the space low annexes positioned laterally and asymmetrically, playing of today’s Republic Square, and together they brought a the role of the visual and functional connectors between the existing objects and the newly-designed structure (Figure 2 5). The main function of the object under the terrace is the

Refer to Ljiljana Blagojević (2003: 123)

48 spatium Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

one of a cinema, intended for 1,500 viewers, and with a restaurant. The lower part of the block surface was designed architectural scene, and this competition managed to engage as a park, with the idea to make a natural connection to yethad another confirmed generation itself as of beingSerbian deeply and Yugoslav rooted inarchitects. the local the future green axis stretching down the slope through the urban tissue. The same as in the cases of other earlier potentials could be also understood as an immanent projects, this one has also remained unimplemented in potentialThe persistence of an urban of anplace idea to use about the specificartifact of space architecture and its reality. (or an architectural design) to imprint into the urban tissue The next opportunity to survey the professional community the ideas and relations autonomous from the ever-changing emerged in 1968, when the competition for the urban policies of the urban development (as Aureli (2008) design of Belgrade downtown – from Kalemegdan Fortress interprets the ideas of Aldo Rossi). to Slavia Square – was announced. In this competition two THE 1991 COMPETITION: OLD IDEAS FOR NEW TIMES projects were awarded the first prize: the one designed by started, the competition was announced for the architectural the architects Stojan Maksimović and Borko Novaković from In the year when the final breakup of Yugoslavia had already Belgrade (Figure 6), and the other designed by Feđa Košir, Prizrenska Street and 2 Balkanska Street, and the design of an architect from Ljubljana, Slovenia (Petričić, 1968). solution of two office buildings, in the locations of 1a

secondthe public prize space was of awarded Terazije toTerrace. the architect The first Milan prize Lojanica went to the architects Slobodan Mića Rajović and Zoran Nikezić, the

and the third to the team of architects – Stojanović, Tmušić and Lončar (Terazije Terrace, 1991). The reason for the competition was obviously the appearance of an influential privateBoth of investor the highest-rankedready to build at theprojects site (Mitrović, were designed 1991). completely in a postmodernist manner, using the complex decomposition of the form and the repetition of the typical architectural elements – the column, the wall, the window, architrave, pergolas and so on, employing the skill of the well-known compositional methods of the postmodern era.

Figure 6. Maksimović and Novaković, Terazije Terrace area, competition project, site plan, 1968 (Source: Petričić, 1968)

Both designs, as well as the other awarded ones, proposed monumental dimensions of the space of the Terrace, which, projectdirectly followingcomprised Dobrović’s the radial example, repetition stretched of this in direction, cascades multipliedtowards the four river times, Sava. Thereby, with a Maksimovićfocal point andon theNovaković’s circular plaza at the foot of the Sava Slope – designed as a kind of a connector to the “new entering point of the downtown” main railway station. In the Slovenian architect’s work, a vigorous,(Maksimović linear and stroke Novaković, of the extended 1968), in Terazije the location Terrace of was the used as one of the elements in giving a new shape to the silhouette of the city – “the horizontal texture of the terraces and esplanades with a view of Srem” (Košir, 1968: 45). Figure 7. Rajović and Nikezić, Terazije Terrace, competition project, projects the complex architectural treatment of the public perspective view and elevation, 1991 spaceIn a significant of the Terrace number had of been other used awarded mainly and without mentioned any (Source: Terazije Terrace, 1991) monumental masses of the built tissue, but with the whole system of the terraces, in symmetrical order, with the main In the winning project, the basic spatial conception combines the recognizable theme of the cascaded lateral masses with a shortened version of the terrace – as proposed in the direction axis (Bežan, Mušić and Starc; Stojanović; and 1950 and 1951 projects, as well as in some later solutions. others), or in the geometry of a certain move aside (Đokić, The idea of Terazije Terrace as an urban location of special Petrović and Lukić). placingBesides, two it is pylon-towers clear at first insight the thatspace it of also the applied park (Figure the idea 7). of the gate, originally introduced by Dobrović, formed by significance for the urban development of Belgrade

spatium 49 Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

The password of the project was “Twin Peaks”, and its planned in the area of the park, whereas some existing textual part provides an additional piece of evidence for the facilities in poor condition occupied the front of the streets,

The theme was joined with other usual postmodernist Some architectural magazines even published the proposals motifssignificance – the accentuation this compositional of the massive motif had wall, for here the furnished authors. e.g. the building at 1 Prizrenska Street (Mitrović, 1993). However, when the Terrace is in question the 1991 partly with the small windows, and the use of the cascading for the remodeling of the winning design (Popović, 1993). competition was the absolute exception from the rule, , since masses,by granite diagonally tiles (Rajović shifted and here, Nikezić, in the 1991),directions perforated of the connecting elements between the main body of the building building in 2 Balkanska Street arose along the left side of and the tower. theit had slope, the downexecution the hill, of an giving object a new as the shape final to outcome.the location. The In his book Architecture’s Desire, K. Michael Hays (2010:1) argues: Architecture comprises a set of operations that organize formal representations of the real (...) and hence, rather than merely being invested with an ideology by its creators and users, it is ideological in its own right – an imaginary “solution” to a real social situation and contradiction (as Louis Althusser’s take on Jacques Lacan puts it); that is what is meant by its “autonomy”. We could argue that the 1991 competition was a demonstration of an evident inertia at the local architectural scene, which acted as if perpetually engaged with postmodern themes of form, composition and symbolism. In this context, the autonomy of architectural discourse was employed only as a basis for the formal exercises. The scene as a whole missed a good opportunity to offer relevant “solutions” to the social and urban contradictions of their time.

THE 1998 COMPETITION: A NEW ANSWER TO THE OLD QUESTIONS

central part of the location, the local authorities announced aHesitant new architectural about the adoption competition of the for final Terazije solution Terrace for thein September 1998. The winners of the competition were the Figure 8. Milan Lojanica, Terazije Terrace, competition project, perspective view, 1991 with Zorica and Boris Penušliski. According to the jury, (Source: Terazije Terrace, 1991) theirteam ofwork architects: successfully Karolina met Damjanovićall the requirements Grujičić, together of the competition brief. Still, this solution has also remained The second prize went to a proposal of an even more complex unrealized. expression, using the themes of the postmodern vocabulary. However, another project is remembered as the most The side forms are made of different elements, grouped provocative and the most vigorous design of this competition (Figure 9). Awarded the second prize, this work had been convex, leaving the middle space axially organized around theinto sequencesa kind of aof continual the central flow, motifs switching – the from fountains, concave the to obelisk, the colonnades framing the view, and so on. Taken designed by the architectural team: Dejan Miljković, as a whole, this was a solution primarily engaged around the Branislav Mitrović, Gordana Radović, Zoran Radojičić and issue of the composition of an urban space, insisting on an “theMarina simplicity, Šibalić. Instrength their report, and attractiveness the jury stated of thethat, concept, among architecture forming a series of micro-ambiances (Figure 8). basedother significanton the traditional advantages understanding of the solution, of Terazijethere were Terrace also: It uses historical reminiscences, such as the reconstructed in creating the identity of Belgrade’s spaces and the image old fountain from Terazije Square (Lojanica, 1991: 2) and aims to create likable spaces using the local architectural arhitekata Beograda and Savez arhitekata Srbije, 1999: 3). archetypes – “the porch, back-street colonnades, the Furtherof the city, on, as along established with the by functionalDobrović’s qualities,concept” (Društvothe jury chardak, balconies, eaves, etc.” (Ibid.: 4). also praised the exciting image of the structure, with the The prolonged controversy over the realization of the potential to leave a deep imprint in the spatial memory of winning project was harsh. It involved different groups of the citizens, “with a tendency to become the most dominant citizens and professionals. One of the main objections was architectural motif of the overall perception of Belgrade” the one indicating the excessive volume of the construction (Ibid.: 3).

50 spatium Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

In their text accompanying the competition project, the temporary intervention, is nowhere in sight. of widely explaining the project itself. It is very indicative (in 2016), the final shape of this space, or at least a new whichauthors quotation gave an they extensive chose citation– the well-known of Dobrović, sequence instead CONCLUSION Gaining an insight into the part of the architectural history Genius loci, and his critique of local urban planning and of Terazije Terrace (Table 1), and especially focusing the architecturewhere Dobrović as focused elaborates on unimportant his experience themes of and Belgrade’s without research on the competition projects from different periods, any broader vision. In the context of the competition, this citation can be understood as a way to effectively stress the service of the creation of a new, better and up-to-date city qualities of the project – it should lead to the conclusion that centerwe can haveconclude left athat small those mark many in effortsspace, andbut havereflections made ina this project offers a new answer to all the old questions: it solves an architectural problem, it is not hairsplitting, and it takes the role of a new symbol of the city. significantThe 1929-1930 impact competition on the local architecturalcan be understood milieu. as the crucial moment of the breakthrough of modern architecture into the provincial architectural scene of Belgrade, although

Many authors share the view that competitions can serve asDobrović’s great opportunities vision has unfortunatelyfor the promotion never beenof new realized. ideas, regardless of whether the proposal in question is awarded or not. The usual example is Corbusier’s 1927 design for the competition for the League of Nations in Geneva. He and other modernists lost the competition, but won the day, eventually, through the further promotions of their ideas.

realization has never come, due to different reasons, among whichIn the casethe resistanceof Dobrović, of the competitionlocal conservative was won, forces but wasthe

contribution of his architecture has left its mark on the culturalprobably heritage the most in significant the form one. of theHowever, set of the unprecedented autonomous Figure 9. Dejan Miljković and the team, Terazije Terrace, ideas about a place, a city and its potential development. competition project, perspective view, 1998 (Source: courtesy of D. Miljković) the architectural scene of the period. The highest-ranked projectsThe 1991 could competition be understood reflected as a negotiating certain disorientation with a brutal of In the case of the 1998 competition program, the architectural and overwhelming urban reality beyond control, where the

to soothe by virtue of an architectural project. The outcome Theproblem building of the in theTerrace location which of 2Miljković Balkanska and Street the teamwas to had be wasconflict possibly between even the better private than and its the odds public were. interest was hard realized,to solve wasand somewhatthe project different for the other from one Dobrović’s was intended problem. for In 1996, the competition project that shook the scene was realization. The central slope of the block was supposed to an indicative sign of a new fresh wave of architectural ideas, be an attractive public space, as well as a functional link to which introduced itself through the work and way of thinking all necessary access communications to these two buildings of the new generation of Belgrade architects. Referring to that would eventually form its architectural framework. the architectural theory of ‘the post-critical practice’, which This issue, along with the other two key aims (non- hairsplitting and the creation of a new symbol of the city), shows all the main signs of the projective were solved in one simple expressive gesture – introducing a emerged at the ‘fin de siècle’, we can argue that this project huge bearing metal structure with a terrace raised radically problem, acts performatively and uses the (as autonomous defined by – at the most distant point from Terazije Square, with gameSomol of and architecture Whiting to (2002)) give new, behavior unexpected – it simplifiesand attractive the the idea to conquer that place in the air (which intrigued solutions to a spatial situation. The competition surely was a unique opportunity to propose an architecture of this kind in daring design). the most effective way, and to possibly help open the door to citizens’ imagination in the 1930s, proposed by Dobrović’s the ongoing shift of ideas and new architectural discourses. Ten years after this competition, new city authorities announced yet another context for an architectural solution REFERENCES to the central part of the Terrace, above Kraljice Natalije Konkurs za Terazijsku terasu (1929) Politika, 10. februar [A Street. The jury extended the competition in the second Competition for Terazije Terrace (1929) Politika 10 February]. Aureli, P. V. (2008) The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture Within and Against Capitalism. NYC, New York: round, after which the first prizes were given – one went Princeton Architectural Press. to the ARCVS studio (Branislav Redžić and the team) and Although different activities connected with the potential B. S. (1951) Terazijska terasa - Beograd, Tehnika, No. 6, pp. 200-202. the re:a.c.t studio (Grozdana Šišović and Dejan Milanović). implementation of one of these projects are still topical [B.S. Terazije Terrace - Belgrade (1951) Tehnika, No. 6, pp. 200-202.]

spatium 51 Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

Table 1. The chronology of activities on planning and designing Terazije Terrace

year project/competition client / jury author / awarded organizer/(reference) 1897 1901 Dimitrije Leko – argues for the building on this site Andra Stevanović – stresses the importance of the site 1910 1912 Chambon’s Plan Alban and Alfred Chambon Jefta Stefanović – proposes the site for the future Town Hall project for T.T. the first known drawing of the 1921 A design project Bank of Denube Emil Hoppe and Otto Schönthal 1921- International Đorđević, I prize – Municipality of Belgrade 1922 Competition for 3xII prize ex-aequo Rudolf Perco, Erwin Ilz, Erwin Böck ( Novissima); the Master Plan of Dobra Mitrović, Dragutin Auburtin et Paranty (Urbs Magna) – T.T.; Emerih Forbah (Santé, beauté, commerce Belgrade Vlada Mitrović, et traffic) Ranislav Avramović, Pera Popović, 2xIII prize ex-aequo Jozef Briks (Sveti Sava) – T.T. ; Gustav Blum (Danubius) - T.T. Milan M. Jovanović, 3xIV prize ex-aequo Julie Zaborcky and Josif Woytka (Vojvoda Mišić) – T.T.; Roger SwissVlajko arch. Popović Edmond and Branko Fasio and Popović, Bolomey and Ion Davidescu (Impartial); Albert Bodmer, Fritz Schwarz, Uroš (Oj na engineerFrench architect Duc Chiflot, more) - T.T. 4 х mention: Prestonica Karađorđevića – T.T. Beograd 1918-1948; Sapienti Sat; Forum (Hoppe and Schönthal) 1923 Master Plan of Belgrade The first official planning document which regulates Terazije Terrace 1927 A sketch Jan Dubovi – A proposal presented in newspapers 1929- International I prize Municipal Court 1930 Competition for the Klementije Bukavac, eng.;Đura II prize design of Terazije Branko Popović,Đorđe arch., Kovaljevski, III prizeNikola Dobrović (Prague) Terrace arch. IV prizeO. Kurc and Ivan Savković (Munich) Bajalović, arch., 6 mentionsMijo Hećimović and Gustav Bohutinski (Prague) Branislav Marinković and Dragoljub Jovanović Dušan Babić (Belgrade), Alfred Libig (Lajpciga), Strižić Višnjevački 1930 Kovaljevski – temporary arrangement design (partly built) (Berlin),Đorđe Karlo Leher (Berlin), Adolf Miaman (Dresden), Jovan Radenković (Paris) 1937 International Đura I prize – Municipality of Belgrade Competition for the II prize Marcel Pinchis and Grigore Hirsch (Bucharest) Design of Heir of the Branko Popović, Bajalović, III nagrada х 2 Josef Wentzler (Dortmund); Ivan Rik (Belgrade) Throne Square Milan Nešić, Svetozar Geniči, Mihailo Radovanović 1939 Master plan Đorđe 1946 project revision Kovaljevski and Danica Tomić-Milosavljević 1950 Master Plan Town Plan. Direc. Nikola Dobrović – revision of the project from 1930. 1951 Design project Design Institute of Stanko Mandić – design for Terazije Terrace supervision team: Dragiša Brašovan, arch.; Đorđe Belgrade Vladeta Maksimović and Vido Vrbanić Josiš Najman, arch. Lazarević, eng.;Miladin Prljević, arch.; Miloš Somborski, arch.; Bogdan Ignjatović, arch.; Bratislav Stojanović, arch; 1959 Design solution Town Planning 1967- Competition for B.I and Anđelković II prize and A. Stjepanović 1968 the urban design Department of Belgrade, of the central part Pranko Pešić, arch, Belgrade Land and of Belgrade – from Zdenko Kolacio, arch., Ivo Kurtović, III- Stojan and IVMaksimović prize and Borko Novaković Development Public Kalemegdan to arh., Miroslav Marković, eng., Mihajlo - AleksandarFeđa Košir, (Ljubljana)Đokić Agency; Dimitrije Mitrović, arch.,Šlajmer Milorad, arch.,Pantović, Ivan Society of Yugoslavian Tucović Square arch., Branko Petričić, arch., Jovan I group of mentions:, Vladimir Petrović and Petar Lukić Architects and Union of AleksandarSekulić, Marko Đorđević , arch., Ratko - Marjan Bežan, Braco Mušić and Nives Starc, (Ljubljana) Urbanists of Yugoslavia Taumban, arch., Lazar Trifunović, Vojislav Mačkić, Dimitar Vanov, Rafail Vlčevski, (Skoplje); Josip Svoboda, arch. IIMiroslav group ofNikolić; mentions: Vladimir Bjelikov, Vladimir Božičković, Sima Miljković, Smilja Vujnović, eng., Leon Kabiljo, arch. Kanački, Petar Popović; Uroš Martinović III group of mentions: Nedeljko Borovnica; Vladislav Ivković, Ranko Trbojević, ŠmidGradimir, Vlado Bosnić Šobat, (Zagreb) Hranislav Stojanović; Mladen Anđel, Ivan Piteža, Edvin 1991 Competition for two I prize Yugoslavia Commerce, office buildings and II prize Milan Lojanica Belgrade; Society of the central part of Mihajlo Mitrović, III prizeSlobodan, Mića, Rajović and Zoran Nikezić Belgrade Architects, and public space of Terazije Aleksandar Stjepanović, 2 mentions: Society of Belgrade Terrace Dragoljub Bakić, Konstantin Kostić, Branislav Stojanović, Branka Tmušić, Vesna Lončar Urbanists Miodrag Ferenčak, Ružica Božović-Stamenović Aleksandar Marinković, Dušan Pantelić, Borivoje Cvejić, Vesna Matičević, 3Milan lower Rakočević, mentions: Marko Nikola Savić, Žarković, Đorđe Kosta Karamata, Miodrag Filipović, Dragan Stamenović; – Miloš Bobić Anđelija Josipović, Aleksandra Mitrović, Jovan Mitrović; – Vladislav Banović. Ivković, consultants–co-authors: Stana Dimić, Darko Radović; – Rafali Vičevski and EN-JUB (Energoprojekt 1998 Competition for the NatašaI prize Vičevska, Skoplje design solution of II prize HK and Jugobanka AD), central public area of Milan Božić, Marina KarolinaŠibalić Damjanović-Grujić, Zorica Penušliski and Boris Penušliski Evropa Internacional the part of Terazije ĐorđevićVioleta Karić, arch., III prizeDejan Marijan Miljković, Đulinac Branislav, Milan Đurić Mitrović, Gordana Radović, Zoran Radojčić, Insurance Company Terrace Miodrag Cvijić, arch., Jovanka Šišović along with: Ciganović, arch., 3 mentions: , Dejan Miletić, Borislav Petrović, Ivan Union of Serbian Hranislav Milanović, Rašković, Aleksandar Tomić, Miljan Đorđević Architects, Society of Zoran Jakovljević arch., Zlata Jarić, special commendation– Slobodan Mićaoutside Rajović, the competition Zoran Nikezić conditions: Belgrade Architects arch., Sava Forkapić, arch., – Zoran Dmitrović, Petar Zaklanović; – Vesna Nadeždin-Ljubičić, Miloš Radivoje Dinulović, arch., Dragana 2006- Competition for Bazik, arch., Zorica Savičić, arch. Branislav2x I prize Jovin, ex-aequo: Ivan Nikolić Belgrade Land and 2007 design of public space Development Public of Terazije Terrace Bojan Kovačević, arch., Jelena Boris Muhović ARCVS Beograd (architects: Branislav Redžić,; Marijalandscape Agency; Mali kolektiv from Terazije Square arch.,Radivojević, Dragan arch., Praštalo, Svetlana Đorđe Marjanović.arhc.: Mirjana Suzana Popović,); Dragana Žarković, Vesna Milojević, Bojan Spasov, - ETB doo; Society of to Kraljice Natalije Ivančević, arch., Marijana Strugar, Re:ACT – Grozdana, Zoran Milovanović, Dragan Ivanović, Zoran Đurović Belgrade Architects Street arch. III prize: Štulić and Society of Belgrade Nedeljković, arch., Vlada A. Milić, 2 mentions: Šišović and Dejan Milanović ; Urbanists Milan Maksimović and Dragan Marinčić Vasilije Milunović, Marina Dimitrijević, Ivana Šimković – Dušan Lajović, Svetolik Lukić, Aleksandra Vukićević, Branka Ukropina and (Source: author) Gordana Gogić

52 spatium Šišović G.: Architectural competitions and the issue of the autonomy of architecture: the case of Terazije Terrace

Modernism in Serbia: the elusive margins M et al. (1993) Terazijska terasa, Forum, No. 21, p. 7. of Belgrade architecture 1919-1941, Cambridge-London: MIT et al. (1993) Terazije Terrace, Forum, No. 21, p. 7.] Blagojević, Lj. (2003) itrović, М. Press. Srpska arhitektura XX veka: od istoricizma [Mitrović, М. Cohen, J. L. (2008) Le Corbusier’s Centrosoyuz in Moscow, Future do drugog modernizma, Beograd: Arhitektonski Fakultet Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Perović, R. M. (2003) The Serbian Criticism, Vol. 5, No. 1, Special Issue on the Preservation of Architecture of the 20th Century: From Historicism to Second Soviet Heritage, pp. 52-61. UniverzitetaModernism. Belgrade:u Beogradu. University [Perović, of R. Architecture, M. (2003) Faculty of Architecture]. Beogradu, Arhitektura, Nikola Dobrović - eseji, Dobrović,N. (1932) N.The (1932) Development Uređenje of the “Terase” “Terrace” na Terazijamaat Terazije in u projekti, kritike, Beograd: Arhitektosnki fakultet Univerziteta Belgrade, Arhitektura, No.No. 1/2, 1/2, pp. 114-118.] pp. 114-118. [Dobrović, Perović, M., Krunić, S. (eds.), (1998) Nikola Društvo arhitekata Beograda i Savez arhitekata Srbije (eds.) Dobrović – Essays, Projects, Criticism, Belgrade: University of (1999) Konkurs za izradu idejnog rešenja parternog uređenja Architecture,u Beogradu, p.24. Faculty [Perović, of Architecture, M., Krunić, p. S. 24.] (eds.), (1998) centralne javne površine dela terazijske terase u Beogradu - Katalog nagrađenih radova sa izveštajem ocenjivačkog suda, Beograd: DAB and SAS. [The Association of Belgrade Petričić,Arhitektura B. (1968) urbanizam, O rezultatima konkursa za urbanističko Architects and The Union of Architects of Serbia (eds.) (1999) (1968)rešenje On poteza the Results od Kalemegdana of the Competition do Trga Dimitrija for Urban Tucovića, Design A Competition for the Design of the Landscaping of the Central No. 49-50, pp. 7-24. [Petričić, B. Public Area of A Part of Terazije Terrace in Belgrade – The Square, Arhitektura urbanizam,No. 49-50, pp. 7-24.] catalogue of awarded projects with the jury report. Belgrade: of the Area from Kalemegdan Fortress to Dimitrije Tucović Politika, ABA and UAS.] Hays, K. M. (2010) Architecture’s Desire, Reading the Late Avant- Popović,Look Like?, B. (1930) Politika Kako, 31st će December.]izgledati Terazijska terasa?, Garde. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 31. decembar. [Popović, B. (1930) What Will Terazije Terrace Forum, No. 21, p. 7. Forum, No. 21, p. 7.] Beograd između Popović, Ž. (1993) Terazijska terasa, Kovaljevski,stvarnosti iĐ. sna, (1930) O uređenju Terazijske terase u Beogradu, [Popović, Ž. (1993) Terazije terrace, u Perović, M and Manević, Z. (eds.), (1982) Arhitekura: 33 konkursna projekta, Rajović, S. M., Nikezić, Z. (1991) Terazijska terasa - šansa i izazov, Arrangement of posebanTerazije brojTerrace časopisa in Belgrade, Urbanizam reprinted Beograda, in u Rajović, S. M. (2011) No. 66-67 pp. 109-111. [Kovaljevski, Đ. (1930) Belgrade On the Beograd: Slobodan Mića Rajović, pp. 196-197. [Rajović, S. M., between the reality and dream: the special issue of Urbanizam Architecture: 33 competition Nikezić, Z. (1991) Terazije Terrace – An Opportunity and a BeogradaMiloš R. Perović, No. 66-67 and pp. Zoran 109-111.] Manević (eds.), (1982) entries, Challenge in Rajović, S. M. (2011) Društveni arhitektonski objekti (1952) Tehnika, Vol. VII, No.2, Košir, F. (1968) Uz projekat rekonstrukcije centra Beograda, Belgrade: Slobodan Mića Rajović, pp. 196-197.] Arhitektura, No. 99-100, pp. 45-48. [Košir, F. (1968) Along pp. 340-351. [Social Architectural Objects (1952) Tehnika, Vol. With the Design of the Urban Reconstruction of the Center of VII, No.2, pp. 340-351.] Belgrade, Arhitektura, No. 99-100, pp. 45-48.] Somol, R., Whiting, S. (2002) Notes around the Doppler Lojanica, M. (1991) Osnovna strateška opredeljenja projekta Effect and other Moods of Modernism, Perspecta: The Yale - tekstualni deo konkursnog rada, Arhiv Društva arhitekata Architectural Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 72-77. Beograda, fascikla 35/1 [Lojanica, M. (1991) The Basic Terazijska terasa (1991) Forum, No. 7, p. 6-7. [Terazije terrace Strategic Orientations of the Design Solution – textual part of (1991) Forum, No. 7, p. 6-7.] . Archive of The Association of Belgrade the competition design Opštinski dom i Terazijska terasa (1927) Politika, 10. decembar [The Town Hall and Terazije Terrace (1927) Politika, 10 December.] izArchitects, 1923. godine file 35/1.] i njihovo poništavanje, Godišnjak grada Maksimović,Beograda, B. (1980) Vrednosti Generalnog plana Beograda poznat projekat za Terazijsku terasu, Nasledje, No. XIV, pp. Values of the Master Plan for Belgrade from 1923 and Their Vuksanović-Macura, Z. (2013) Emil Hope i Oto Šental: malo Annulment,ol. Godišnjak XXVII, pp. grada239-269. Beograda [Maksimović, Vol. XXVII, B. (1980) pp. 239- The Schönthal: A Little-Known Urban Design Project for Terazije 269.] Terrace,155-169. Nasledje [Vuksanović-Macura,, No. XIV, pp. 155-169.] Z. (2013) Emil Hoppe and Otto o širim koncepcijama prostorne organizacije Beograda, Generalni plan Beograda Maksimović,Arhitektura, S., Novaković, B. (1968) Razmišljanja na temu 1923: komparacija planiranog i ostvarenog – doktorski Vuksanović-Macura,rad odbranjen na Arhitektonskom Z. (2014) fakultetu Univerziteta u OrganizationNo. of 99-100,Belgrade, pp. Arhitektura 41-44. [Maksimović,, No. 99-100, S., pp.Novaković, 41-44.] The 1923 Master B. (1968) Reflections on the Wider Concepts of the Spatial Plan of Belgrade: A Comparison Between the Planned and theBeogradu Realized [Vuksanović-Macura, - PHD thesis, University Z. (2014) of Belgrade, Faculty of 1929-1931, Godišnjak grada Beograda, Vol. XXVI, pp. 209- Manević, Z. (1979) Beogradski arhitektonski modernizam Architecture.] 1929-1931, Godišnjak grada Beograda, Vol. XXVI, pp. 209- 235.]235. [Manević, Z. (1979) Architectural Modernism in Belgrade Arhitekta Jan Dubovi, Beograd: Architect Milašinović-Marić,Jan Dubovi D. (2001) Zadužbina Andrejević. [Milašinović-Marić, D. (2001)Forum, No. , Belgrade: Zadužbina Andrejević]. Mitrović,Forum, No.М. (1991)7, p. 5.] Za velike teme - veliki stvaraoci, Received May 2016; accepted in revised form June 2016. 7, p. 5. [Mitrović, М. (1991) For Great Themes – Great Creators,

spatium 53